New Clause 1 — Categories of civil partners other than same sex couples

Part of Orders of the Day — Civil Partnerships Bill [Lords] – in the House of Commons at 4:30 pm on 9 November 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Douglas Hogg Douglas Hogg Conservative, Sleaford and North Hykeham 4:30, 9 November 2004

I do not think that my father would have done, as a matter of fact. He became more compassionate in his old age—something that I would commend to other hon. Members as well.

If one asks oneself what marriage is, one sees that it is the recognition by law of a relationship of a continuing kind. Historically, such relationships have been held between men and women, and marriage has been attended by divine service. Of course, that was changed, and we now have civil marriage. I must ask myself what the sensible distinction is in fact and substance between a civil marriage between a man and a women and a legal partnership of the kind contemplated in the Bill. I do not think that there is any significant difference between a civil marriage between a man and a woman and a legal partnership as created by the Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is not to attach to the relationship the financial and other benefits to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred; it is rather to accord to a couple of homosexuals the right to denote their relationship with legal status. They want to do that, and I do not want to withhold from them that ability. As a matter of fact, I also think that the Church would be right to bless such relationships. [Interruption.] I can hear my right hon. Friend Miss Widdecombe expressing her disagreement. She and I have often disagreed on this point, but I think that in a liberal, compassionate world, the Church should be willing to act in that way.